It seems to me that some of you have fallen into a classic creationist trap. You can tell by “Scottie`s” ever increasing length of arguments and his arrogance and his ”boys, if you can`t follow me, I will take it slow and easy” act. He`s showing off, obviously. He`s playing for an audience and that is really the tactics for creationists nowadays. Be strictly scientific, strictly unreligious and repeat as often as possible that the idea of evolution is really a belief system. I think it was obvious when “Scottie” stated that evolution is a fact, but only within species. To say that, you have a different motive than science. I hate to see these fake debates over and over again. I think they are harmful to forums like this and to science in general.

Thanks for the compliment.It's nice to have it recognised that I am sticking strictly to science and being un-religious.I assumed that science is about just that.

I will therefore continue with the science and continue to keep religion out of the discussion.

So Is the DNA sequence the Master controller of the cell?

We all begin life as a single cell containing an entire genome.As the cell divides the chromosomes are faithfully replicated so that each daughter cell receives the same genome (There are some exceptions to this. For example in the human immune system.)So how is it that the daughter cells then go down different pathways leading to different tissues in this process of differentiation?

The offspring of one cell will eventually gain the ability to expand and contract as part of a muscle, while another will take on a rigid form with a specialized ability to transmit electrical signals etc etc. In the human genome there are about 200 different cell types..

This instruction set (genome) apparently does not contain all the instructions needed for cell growth.These instructions are extra or above (epi) to the genome.

Now there is also another factor worthy of consideration.

The result of the Human Genome Project posed another problem.It was expected that the human genome would contain about one hundred thousand protein coding genes. Instead it turned out to be only about twenty odd thousand.

This number is roughly about the same as a simple one millimeter long roundworm.

Genes are therefore far from the whole story.

Most of the human DNA (some 98.8%) does not code for proteins. The bulk of this non coding DNA was referred to as junk i.e. the evolutionary accumulation of meaningless genetic leftovers.

However as more information has surfaced an intriguing picture is revealed.Non coding DNA accounts for only 10% of a one celled prokarote, only 32% in yeast, 75% in roundworms, 83% in insects, 91% in a pufferfish.The more complex the organism the greater is the amount of this “junk”.This is highlighted in this paperhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 4/abstract

We show by analysis of sequenced genomes that the relative amount of non-protein-coding sequence increases consistently with complexity. We also show that the distribution of introns in complex organisms is non-random.

The above is a direct quote from the above abstract.

So we have gone from “junk” to the primary measure of our evolutionary advance, as organisms have got more complex.

So a reasonable question to ask would be.

How does Darwinian theory of random mutations of the genome explain this 98.8% “junk” in the human genome and which incidentally is distinctly non-random?

This is how cell biologist Lenny Moss reviews the situation in his book “ What Genes can’t do”

Once upon a time it was believed that something called “genes” were integral units, that each specified a piece of a phenotype [that is, a trait], that the phenotype as a whole was the result of the sum of these units, and that evolutionary change was the result of new genes created by random mutation and differential survival. Once upon a time it was believed that the chromosomal location of genes was irrelevant, that DNA was the citadel of stability, that DNA which didn’t code for proteins was biological “junk,” and that coding DNA included, as it were, its own instructions for use. Once upon a time it would have stood to reason that the complexity of an organism would be proportional to the number of its unique genetic units. (Moss 2003, p. 185)

The evidence now is that the resources for the management of cell functions reside, in part, in these non-coding protein areas as well as other areas distributed throughout the cell.Some recent experiments show how important the role of RNA is in phenotypic variation.

oldman wrote:It seems to me that some of you have fallen into a classic creationist trap. You can tell by “Scottie`s” ever increasing length of arguments and his arrogance and his ”boys, if you can`t follow me, I will take it slow and easy” act. He`s showing off, obviously. He`s playing for an audience and that is really the tactics for creationists nowadays. Be strictly scientific, strictly unreligious and repeat as often as possible that the idea of evolution is really a belief system. I think it was obvious when “Scottie” stated that evolution is a fact, but only within species. To say that, you have a different motive than science. I hate to see these fake debates over and over again. I think they are harmful to forums like this and to science in general.

I am not sure if Scottie is being harmful. He sure is not debating, as his constant refusal to answer my simple question demonstrate, and he is long winded and not very interesting. But I think that there is also a need to counterbalance the substance of his arguments to show their flaws, not in order to convince him, but to prevent those who could be convinced that there is some substance in his demonstration. So pointing out that his argument of design is essentially circular (nothing can be without design, so there must be a designer that is something [back to start]) is essential. However I do not think that interacting with him is useful. He demonstrates that his part of the discussion is only a way to make his points irrespectively of any arguments he is presented with, so I have no problem in using the same strategy.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

So I take it that Scottie still refuses to give any information about his theory. Science is not a secret society . If you want to keep secrets I would suggest keeping a diary

Who needs a diary when the evidence is publicly available.Canolan’s question has been answered. It is just that he does not like the answer so he invents arguments about circular reasoning.His problem is that he has not asked the scientific question.So let me help

How about this most important one.

Is my understanding of Functional Design falsifiable?

Now this would be a reasonable question. But of course he is unable to argue scientifically,so he tries to get me to name the designer, as if that has some scientific merit. But that is his only bolt hole so I suppose he has to dive into it.

So lets deal with what would falsify design hypothesis and also what would falsify the neo-darwinian theory.

For a theory to be scientific it must be falsifiable. Yes? no one is going to argue with that are they?

Lets start with my view.We all see functional design in the cell and no one seriously argues with that.The question is how did this functional design come about.

My understanding is that an outside agency is responsible.

To be regarded as science then it must be falsifiable. So once again, is this understanding falsifiable?I answer Yes, it can be falsified, and there is nothing “secretive” about this.

Every one is aware that functional design (whether good, or not so good or even downright bad) displays itself with certain properties.1) The function has a purpose. ( i.e. It goes from A to B with C as it’s goal )2) Method by which that purpose is achieved. (How does it go from A to B)3) It would not contain parts or units that had no function toward the purpose.

Therefore, falsifying this hypothesis would require that parts of the genome were non functional. Now if that was the case then that would be an argument against my hypothesis.

So, all you have to do provide evidence that any part(s) of the genome are non functional and my hypothesis is in trouble.There you are, I have told you what you need to show.Should be quite simple, shouldn’t it?

Now, the Darwinian or the neo Darwinian view is that this functional design has come about by random mutations of the genome filtered by natural selection with all life having developed from a common ancester.

If this theory is to be regarded as scientific then again it must also be falsifiable.So What would falsify this theory?

All you need to do is simply reveal what would be required to falsify this theory. Darwin himself has made some clear statements in that regard in his “Origin of Species.” So you should have no difficulty.

So lets keep all the philosophy, religion, and misrepresentation of my posts out of this discussion and cut to the chase.

Come on canolan, I know you don’t wish to continue debating with me but surely even you can rise to this simple challenge. After all you are the biologist and I am but (how did you put it?) an arrogant fool

Abe Thank you for your question.I joined this forum on the 12th April. My first post is here.about14351-36.html

48 posts later, along with a certain amount of abuse being directed towards me, has resulted in an unanswered challenge.

The theory of design is a valid scientific theory simply because it can be falsified.I have shown how it can be falsified and it has resulted in my challenge to do just that.

I am waiting for someone to inform how the Darwinian theory can be falsified.It has to be falsifiable if it to be counted as scientific.

Things have gone silent on both fronts.

So to recap for your benefit and answer your question

I just noticed this post today and it seems interesting. So if i understand u correctly Ur not saying evolution doesn't occur just that it doesn't occur randomly. is this what ur saying?

There is good evidence that evolution (variation) does occur, but only within species.There is some accumulating evidence that undermines this process as purely random.The field of epi genetics is beginning to show this.

I have been arguing that the (Darwinian or neo-Darwinian) hypothesis, random mutations filtered by natural selection from a common ancestor is not supported by the evidence we see in the functioning of the cell.

I have contended that design is the correct understanding of how the cell appeared.

I do not support either the creationist or the ID understandings as I have found difficulties with them both, although I have not explained my reasons, simply because this debate has been around Darwinian hypothesis or evolution as it seems to be commonly called.Hope that answers your question.

Chromosomes normally come in pairs in the genomes of mammals. One is inherited from the mother and the other from the father. So any given gene occurs twice, with one version or "allele” located on the first chromosome of a pair and the other on the second. When the two alleles are identical, the organism is said to be homozygous for that gene; when the alleles are different, the organism is heterozygous.

As an example, there are mice that in their natural wildtype state are dark-coloured.This colour is partly dependent on a gene known as Kit. These mice are normally homozygous (i.e. both alleles are identical) for this gene. However, when one of the Kit alleles is replaced with a certain mutant gene, the now heterozygous mouse developed white feet and a white tail tip.

Now when these mutant mice were bred together, some of the offspring were again normal wildtype, which would be expected.

However these normal wildtype mice maintained the same white spots that were characteristic of the mutants. Mendel’s laws of inheritance were apparently being violated.

A trait was being displayed despite the absence of it’s corresponding gene. Something epigenetic was going on in the inheritance of the offspring.

This is further evidence that DNA is not the only information set that the cell is using.

Now why is this important for theory.

It is because Darwinian thinking has centered on the genome as being the driver for phenotypic change. Gradualism being the operative process.

However the evidence is, that the cell as a whole determines what an organism is. Neo Darwinism has no answer for this.

One of the most outstanding examples is the caterpillar and butterfly. Both organisms have the same genome, yet how different they are in phenotype and all this change takes place within about two weeks.

I will of course provide more evidence of this epi genetic control that is rapidly coming to light.

First of all, Darwin had no idea about DNA. At the time, when he lived, the DNA was not known yet, especially not as an inheritance material.Second, all of your cells contain the same genome, yet they are different. However, that's not epigenetics, only regulation of genes. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with evolution.

One of the most outstanding examples is the caterpillar and butterfly. Both organisms have the same genome, yet how different they are in phenotype and all this change takes place within about two weeks.

Where does it say that similar genotype aren't capable of producing different phenotypes?